What Is in the Pipeline on Investigational Neuromodulation Techniques for Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: A Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVES: Overactive bladder (OAB) affects millions of patients worldwide. Its treatment is challenging but improves the patient's quality of life. Besides standard techniques for neuromodulation (sacral and pudendal neuromodulation and posterior tibial nerve stimulation), several new techniques have been investigated to treat symptoms of refractory OAB. The purpose of the present review is to outline the state of the art of new neuromodulation techniques for lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In March 2023, a comprehensive MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus search was carried out (keywords: LUTD, new technologies, neuromodulation, LUTS, OAB, painful bladder syndromes, etc). Articles were included according to inclusion (randomized controlled trials, prospective trials, large retrospective studies) and exclusion (case reports, outcomes not clearly expressed in full text, animal studies) criteria. The reference lists of the included studies also were scanned. Both adult and pediatric populations were included, in addition to both neurogenic and nonneurogenic OAB. A narrative review was then performed. RESULTS: Peroneal neuromodulation, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, magnetic nerve stimulation, and parasacral transcutaneous neuromodulation are the most studied investigative techniques and were shown to yield promising results in treating OAB symptoms. Most studies showed promising results even in the complex scenarios of patients with OAB refractory to standard treatments. Comparing investigational techniques with standard of care and their respective clinical outcomes and safety profiles, and confronting their pros and cons, we reasonably believe that once such treatment modalities are further developed, they could play a role in the OAB treatment algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Although the described neuromodulation techniques are being intensely studied, the available results are not yet sufficient for any guidelines to recommend their use.

New minimally invasive solutions for Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) management: A position paper from the UrOP (Urologi Ospedalità Gestione Privata).

To the Editor, In recent years, alternative solutions have been proposed to obtain effective results comparable to TURP, which is currently considered the gold standard, and laser vapo-enucleation techniques (1, 2), but with the possibility of maintaining sexual functions. In recent years there has been a growing trend towards ejaculation preservation. Although the results of TURP (3), and most laser enucleation techniques are undoubted in the Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) and Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) management, they often lack in the preservation of ejaculation. All the alternative recently proposed interventions (Rezum, AquaBeam, Urolift, TPLA, i-TIND, LEST) are procedures considered by some authors to be promising in both managing BPO and preserving sexual functions. However, all these methods are limited by a lack of long-term follow-up that would evaluate the efficacy over time, possible complications related to the method and the correct patient selection for a specific method. The aim of this letter is to summarize the available evidence and provide clinicians with practical recommendations on the use of the brand new minimally invasive techniques for the management of BPO. [...].

Rates of metastatic prostate cancer in newly diagnosed patients: Numbers needed to image according to risk level.

BACKGROUND: The numbers needed to image to identify pelvic lymph node and/or distant metastases in newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa) patients according to risk level are unknown. METHODS: Relying on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (2010-2016), we tabulated rates and proportions of patients with (a) lymph node or (b) distant metastases according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk level and calculated the number needed to image (NNI) for both endpoints. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 145,939 newly diagnosed PCa patients assessable for analyses of pelvic lymph node metastases (cN1), 4559 (3.1%) harbored cN1 stage: 13 (0.02%), 18 (0.08%), 63 (0.3%), 512 (2.8%), and 3954 (14.9%) in low, intermediate favorable, intermediate unfavorable, high, and very high-risk levels. These resulted in NNI of 4619, 1182, 319, 35, and 7, respectively. Of 181,109 newly diagnosed PCa patients assessable for analyses of distant metastases (M1a-c ), 8920 (4.9%) harbored M1a-c stage: 50 (0.07%), 45 (0.1%), 161 (0.5%), 1290 (5.1%), and 7374 (22.0%) in low, intermediate favorable, intermediate unfavorable, high, and very high-risk. These resulted in NNI of 1347, 602, 174, 20, and 5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations perfectly validated the NCCN recommendations for imaging in newly diagnosed high and very high-risk PCa patients. However, in unfavorable intermediate-risk PCa patients, in whom bone and soft tissue imaging is recommended, the NNI might be somewhat elevated to support routine imaging in clinical practice.

Survival after Radical Prostatectomy versus Radiation Therapy in High-Risk and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to compare cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network© (NCCN©) high risk (HR) patients, as well as in Johns Hopkins University (JH) HR and very high risk (VHR) subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 24,407 NCCN HR patients, of whom 10,300 (42%) vs 14,107 (58%) patients qualified for JH HR vs VHR, respectively. Overall, 9,823 (40%) underwent RP vs 14,584 (60%) EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing-risks regression addressed CSM after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, prostate specific antigen, clinical T and N stages, and biopsy Gleason score) between RP and EBRT patients. All analyses addressed the combined NCCN HR cohort, as well as in JH HR and JH VHR subgroups. RESULTS: In the combined NCCN HR cohort 5-year CSM rates were 2.3% for RP vs 4.1% for EBRT and yielded a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.68 (95% CI 0.54-0.86, p <0.001) favoring RP. In VHR patients 5-year CSM rates were 3.5% for RP vs 6.0% for EBRT, yielding a multivariate hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% CI 0.44-0.77, p <0.001) favoring RP. Conversely, in HR patients no significant difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.39-1.25, p=0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that RP holds a CSM advantage over EBRT in the combined NCCN HR cohort, and in its subgroup of JH VHR patients.

Nomogram Predicting Downgrading in National Comprehensive Cancer Network High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Some high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients may show more favorable Gleason pattern at radical prostatectomy (RP) than at biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To test whether downgrading could be predicted accurately. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2016), 6690 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk PCa patients were identified. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES: We randomly split the overall cohort between development and validation cohorts (both n = 3345, 50%). Multivariable logistic regression models used biopsy Gleason, prostate-specific antigen, number of positive prostate biopsy cores, and cT stage to predict downgrading. Accuracy, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA) tested the model in the external validation cohort. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 6690 patients, 50.3% were downgraded at RP, and of 2315 patients with any biopsy pattern 5, 44.1% were downgraded to RP Gleason pattern ≤4 + 4. Downgrading rates were highest in biopsy Gleason pattern 5 + 5 (84.1%) and lowest in 3 + 4 (4.0%). In the validation cohort, the logistic regression model-derived nomogram predicted downgrading with 71.0% accuracy, with marginal departures (±3.3%) from ideal predictions in calibration. In DCA, a net benefit throughout all threshold probabilities was recorded, relative to treat-all or treat-none strategies and an algorithm based on an average downgrading rate of 50.3%. All steps were repeated in the subgroup with any biopsy Gleason pattern 5, to predict RP Gleason pattern ≤4 + 4. Here, a second nomogram (n = 2315) yielded 68.0% accuracy, maximal departures from ideal prediction of ±5.7%, and virtually the same DCA pattern as the main nomogram. CONCLUSIONS: Downgrading affects half of all high-risk PCa patients. Its presence may be predicted accurately and may help with better treatment planning. PATIENT SUMMARY: Downgrading occurs in every second high-risk prostate cancer patients. The nomograms developed by us can predict these probabilities accurately.

Cancer-specific survival after radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy in high-risk and very high-risk African American prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates between radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk African American patients, as well as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) high-risk and very high-risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 4165 NCCN high-risk patients, of whom 1944 (46.7%) and 2221 (53.3%) patients qualified for JHU high-risk or very high-risk definitions. Of all 4165 patients, 1390 (33.5%) were treated with RP versus 2775 (66.6%) with EBRT. Cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models addressed CSM before and after 1:1 propensity score matching between RP and EBRT NCCN high-risk patients. Subsequently, analyses were repeated separately in JHU high-risk and very high-risk subgroups. Finally, all analyses were repeated after landmark analyses were applied. RESULTS: In the NCCN high-risk cohort, 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 2.4 versus 5.2%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.84, p = 0.009) favoring RP. In JHU very high-risk patients 5-year CSM rates for RP versus EBRT were 3.7 versus 8.4%, respectively, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.28-0.95, p = 0.03) favoring RP. Conversely, in JHU high-risk patients, no significant CSM difference was recorded between RP vs EBRT (5-year CSM rates: 1.3 vs 1.3%; multivariable hazard ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16-1.90, p = 0.3). Observations were confirmed in propensity score-matched and landmark analyses adjusted cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In JHU very high-risk African American patients, RP may hold a CSM advantage over EBRT, but not in JHU high-risk African American patients.

Cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy vs external beam radiotherapy in high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To test for differences in cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rates in Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients according to treatment type, radical prostatectomy (RP) vs external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), we identified 2290 NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) high-risk (HR) Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients. Of those, 893 (39.0%) were treated with RP vs 1397 (61.0%) with EBRT. First, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models tested for CSM differences after adjustment for other cause mortality (OCM). Second, cumulative incidence plots and competing risks regression models were refitted after 1:1 propensity score matching (according to age, PSA, biopsy Gleason score, cT-stage, cN-stage). RESULTS: In NCCN HR patients, 5-year CSM rates for RP vs EBRT were 2.4 vs 4.7%, yielding a multivariable hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.19-0.73, p = 0.004) favoring RP. However, after propensity score matching, the hazard ratio of 0.54 was no longer statistically significant (95% CI 0.21-1.39, p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Without the use of strictest adjustment for population differences, NCCN high-risk Hispanic/Latino prostate cancer patients appear to benefit more of RP than EBRT. However, after strictest adjustment for baseline patient and tumor characteristics between RP and EBRT cohorts, the apparent CSM benefit of RP is no longer statistically significant. In consequence, in Hispanic/Latino NCCN high-risk patients, either treatment modality results in similar CSM outcome.

Differences in rates of pelvic lymph node dissection in National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable, unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer across United States SEER registries.

Background: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in NCCN high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. We tested for PLND nonadherence (no-PLND) rates within the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (2010-2015). Materials and methods: We identified all radical prostatectomy patients who fulfilled the NCCN PLND guideline criteria (n = 23,495). Nonadherence rates to PLND were tabulated and further stratified according to NCCN risk subgroups, race/ethnicity, geographic distribution, and year of diagnosis. Results: Overall, the no-PLND rate was 26%; it was 41%, 25%, and 11% in the NCCN intermediate favorable, intermediate unfavorable, and high-risk prostate cancer patients, respectively (p < 0.001). Over time, the no-PLND rates declined in the overall cohort and within each NCCN risk subgroup. Georgia exhibited the highest no-PLND rate (49%), whereas New Jersey exhibited the lowest (15%). Finally, no-PLND race/ethnicity differences were recorded only in the NCCN intermediate unfavorable subgroup, where Asians exhibited the lowest no-PLND rate (20%) versus African Americans (27%) versus Whites (26%) versus Hispanic-Latinos (25%). Conclusions: The lowest no-PLND rates were recorded in the NCCN high-risk patients followed by NCCN intermediate unfavorable and favorable risk in that order. Our findings suggest that unexpectedly elevated differences in no-PLND rates warrant further examination. In all the NCCN risk subgroups, the no-PLND rates decreased over time.

Serenoa repens + selenium + lycopene vs tadalafil 5 mg for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction: a Phase IV, non-inferiority, open-label, clinical study (SPRITE study).

OBJECTIVE: To compare in a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority clinical study, the efficacy and tolerability of Serenoa repens (SeR) + selenium (Se) + lycopene (Ly) (SeR-Se-Ly) therapy vs tadalafil 5 mg in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From May 2015 to January 2017, 427 patients were enrolled in 21 different centres (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register [ISRCTN] 73316039). Inclusion criteria included: age between 50 and 80 years, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥12, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax ) ≤ 15 mL/s, and post-void residual (PVR) <100 mL. Patients were randomised into two groups in a 2:1 ratio: Group A (SeR-Se-Ly, 1 tablet daily for 6 months) and Group B (tadalafil 5 mg, 1 tablet daily for 6 months). The primary endpoint of the study was the non-inferior variation in the IPSS and Qmax in Group A vs Group B after 6 months of treatment. RESULTS: In all, 404 patients completed the full protocol. When comparing both therapies, Group A was statistically not inferior to Group B considering the median change in IPSS (-3.0 vs -3.0; P < 0.01), IPSS quality of life (-2.0 vs -2.0; P < 0.05), and Qmax (2.0 vs 2.0 mL/s; P < 0.01). We found statistically significant differences in the increase of at least 3 points in Qmax (38.2% vs 28.1%; P = 0.04) and of at least 30% of Qmax (39.2% vs 27.3%; P < 0.01) in Group A compared to Group B. The percentage of patients with an increase of at least 3 points in the IPSS and a decrease of at least 25% of the IPSS was not statistically different between the two groups. For adverse events, four patients in Group A (1.44%) and 10 in Group B (7.81%) (P < 0.05) reported side-effects. CONCLUSION: We have shown that treatment with SeR-Se-Ly was not inferior to tadalafil 5 mg for improving IPSS and Qmax in men with LUTS.

Large bladder diverticula: a comparison between laparoscopic excision and endoscopic fulguration.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment of bladder diverticula consists of diverticulectomy, mainly by a laparoscopic approach or transurethral resection of the diverticular neck and fulguration of the mucosa. The endoscopic approach is generally dedicated to small diverticula. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic diverticulectomy versus endoscopic fulguration for bladder diverticula larger than 4 cm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of the medical records of consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic or laparoscopic treatment for bladder diverticula larger than 4 cm at two tertiary hospitals was performed. Therapeutic success was defined as either complete resolution or a decrease of at least 80% in the size of the diverticulum. Complications were recorded and graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: All patients were treated with transurethral resection of the prostate in the same operative session. The endoscopic group included a cohort of 20 male patients. The median age, diverticular diameter and operative time were 65 years, 7 cm and 62.5 min, respectively. No early postoperative complications were observed. Therapeutic success was achieved in 15 cases (75%). The laparoscopic group included a cohort of 13 male patients with a median age of 63 years and median diverticular diameter of 7.0 cm. The median operative time was 185 min (p < 0.0001). Two grade III postoperative complications were observed (15.3%). Therapeutic success was achieved in all patients (100%). CONCLUSIONS: Acquired bladder diverticula larger than 4 cm can be effectively managed either by a laparoscopic approach or by endoscopic fulguration.

Transurethral resection of the prostate in kidney transplant recipients: urological and renal functional outcomes at long-term follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: To assess prospectively the safety and efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms attributable to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in patients who have undergone renal transplantation (RT). To assess the impact of TURP on renal graft function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Urological and renal functional outcomes of TURP performed in RT recipients for treatment of lower urinary tract obstruction attributable to BPH were prospectively assessed in a series of 32 consecutive patients with follow-up of ≥48 months. Maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax ) at uroflowmetry, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void residual urine volume (PVR), haemoglobin and serum creatinine (sCr) levels were recorded before TURP and 1, 6, 24 and 48 months after the procedure. The trends in these variables after TURP were evaluated. Early and delayed complications were assessed and graded according to the Clavien classification system. RESULTS: TURP was performed at a mean of 6 months after RT. No intraoperative complications occurred. Seven postoperative complications were observed (21.9%): two Clavien grade II and five Clavien grade IIIa. Qmax , IPSS and PVR improved significantly after surgery and the improvement was maintained until 48 months. No patient required a repeat TURP during follow-up. SCr levels significantly decreased 1 and 6 months after TURP and did not significantly increase at long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: TURP for lower urinary tract obstruction attributable to BPH in RT recipients is safe and effective since it improves urinary flow, bladder emptying and related urinary symptoms. TURP allows an early significant improvement of graft function that is maintained at a follow-up of 48 months.

An improvement in sexual function is related to better quality of life, regardless of urinary function improvement: results from the IDIProst® Gold Study.

OBJECTIVE: The relationship between lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and erectile dysfunction (ED) has recently received increased attention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Alfa-5® association of Serenoa repens, Pinus massoniana Bark Extract (PMBE) and Crocus sativus (IDIProst® Gold) in improvement of patient's quality of life, when compared with Serenoa repens alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with clinical and instrumental diagnosis of LUTS due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) and ED, attending 5 Italians Urological Institutions from May to December 2012 were enrolled in this prospective, multicentre, phase 3 study. Participants were assigned to receive oral capsules of IDIProst® Gold (one capsule q24 h) or Serenoa repens 320 mg (one capsule q24h) for 3 months. Clinical and instrumental analyses were carried out at the enrollment and at the end of therapy. IPSS, IIEF-5 and SF-36 questionnaires have been used. The main outcome measure was the improvement of quality of life at the end of the whole study period. RESULTS: 129 (mean age 45-71 ± 4.36) men were randomly allocated to IDIProst® Gold (n = 83) or Serenoa repens (n = 46). The baseline questionnaire mean scores were 17.1 ± 6.4, 14.9 ± 3.7, 96.3 ± 1.2 for IPSS, IIEF-5 and SF-36, respectively. At the follow-up examination, statistically significant differences have been reported in terms of IPSS (11.9 vs 13.8; p < 0.001), IIEF-5 and SF-36 mean scores (19.3 vs 16.1; 99.7 vs 96.3; p < 0.003; p < 0.001). Moreover, statistically significant differences were then reported between the two visits, in terms of IPSS, IIEF-5 and SF-36 scores (p < 0.003; p < 0.001; p < 0.001), only in the IDIProst® Gold group. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusions, we found that IDIProst® Gold significantly improve the quality of life of patients affected by LUTS due to BPH and ED, specifically in terms of sexual function, highlighting that a better sexual quality of life is correlated with an higher overall quality of life regardless of the urinary function.

Open versus laparoscopy-assisted radical cystectomy: results of a prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic radical cystectomy is confined to centers where advanced laparoscopy is performed, and its role is not yet well clear. Our aim was to evaluate, through a prospective comparative study, the advantages of the laparoscopic compared with an open approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From November 2002 to December 2005, all the patients in our center who were found to have muscle-invasive bladder cancer without clinical evidence of lymph-node involvement and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score <4 were included in a prospective nonrandomized study. Group A (N = 22) underwent open radical cystectomy, whereas group B (N = 20) underwent laparoscopy-assisted radical cystectomy. The two groups were demographically comparable. We evaluated the mean age, clinical stage, ASA score, operative time, blood loss, intraoperative complications and transfusions, type of diversion, time of catheterization, analgesic consumption, start of oral nutrition, rate of postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, pathologic diagnosis of the specimen, number of lymph nodes removed, and the oncologic outcome. RESULTS: No significant statistical difference was observed between the two groups in intraoperative and postoperative parameters except for analgesic consumption and the start of oral nutrition (P < 0.05). The mean operative time was 260 minutes (range 210-290 minutes) for group A and 284 minutes (range 260-305 minutes) for group B. The mean blood loss was 770 mL (range 450-870 mL) in group A and 520 mL (range 400-620 mL) in group B. The rate of autologous transfusion was 18% in group A and 10% in group B. Seventeen ileal diversions and five neobladder creations were performed in group A, whereas the Bricker diversion was used in 10 cases in group B, and a neobladder was chosen in the 10 other cases. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy-assisted radical cystectomy is a safe procedure, like open surgery, but it offers the advantage of minimal invasiveness, represented by reduced analgesic consumption and early recovery of peristalsis with rapid oral nutrition.

Background to and management of treatment-related bone loss in prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is a common disease among older men. Androgen suppression by either orchiectomy or administration of luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues is the mainstay of treatment. Since the use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum testing has become widespread, however, the timing of endocrine therapy has expanded considerably to include patients with limited involvement of extraprostatic sites and patients presenting an isolated elevation of PSA after radical treatments. These patients are expected to be treated for a long time, since they have a rather low risk of disease progression and there is no recommended time limit for LHRH analogue therapy. The long-term adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy, therefore, deserve more attention than they have received in the past. Osteoporosis represents a special concern for men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy. The rate of bone loss in these men seems to markedly exceed that associated with menopause in women, and fractures occur more frequently than in the healthy elderly male population. Serial bone mineral density (BMD) evaluation could allow the detection of patients with prostate cancer who are at greater risk of osteoporosis and adverse skeletal events after androgen deprivation therapy, such as patients already osteopenic or osteoporotic at baseline and men with rapid bone loss during treatment. BMD evaluated during treatment could also be a potential surrogate parameter of antiosteoporotic therapeutic efficacy. Treatment of bone loss induced by androgen deprivation comprises general prevention measures, antiosteoporotic drugs and the use of alternative endocrine therapies. Optimising lifestyle and diet is important, although it cannot completely prevent bone loss. Patients with nonsevere bone disease may benefit from calcium and vitamin D supplements. Men who are osteoporotic before androgen deprivation or men becoming osteoporotic during treatment and/or experiencing adverse skeletal events may also require bisphosphonates. The effectiveness of these drugs in preventing fractures has been shown in a single randomised study involving patients with osteoporosis, but it has not yet been established in a prostatic cancer population without bone metastases given androgen deprivation therapy. Different forms of endocrine therapy such as low-dose estrogens, antiandrogens and intermittent androgen ablation are under investigation. They could offer the advantage of avoiding (or limiting) treatment-related bone loss. In our opinion, however, the data available so far are not robust enough to recommend these alternative endocrine therapies instead of standard androgen deprivation in routine clinical practice.